Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by George Spurlin (talk | contribs) at 16:18, 10 December 2012 (Keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Campaign on granting Nizami the status of the national poet of Azerbaijan

Campaign on granting Nizami the status of the national poet of Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is article is not the kind of simple reporting of what is recorded in reliable sources that is required for a Misplaced Pages article. It is, rather, a long essay which is written to publish its author's analysis of its topic. That is to say that it falls under Misplaced Pages's concept of original research. It gives undue weight to one particular aspect of the history of views of Nizami Ganjavi's postion in literary history: it is, in fact, substantially longer than the article Nizami Ganjavi, which itself, at 97,484 bytes, is quite long. The article gives a superficially impressive list of 98 references, but closer examination gives a different impression. I have not looked at anywhere near all of the sources cited, but I have looked at a sample of them. The author of the article has also, for many of the references, very helpfully quoted the relevant passages from the sources. From what I have seen, most of the sources appear to be relevant background material on various issues to do with Nizami Ganjavi's work and life, and in some cases specifically to do with his ethnicity and the language he used, but it seems likely that only a small minority of them concern the "campaign" that the article is about. For example, at reference 71 the author says "The opinion that Nizami is a Persian poet is reflected in the leading national and biographical encyclopaedias outside the former Soviet Union – there Nizami is described exclusively as a Persian poet", and goes on to give numerous examples of sources where that is so, such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which is quoted as saying "greatest romantic epic poet in Persian literature, who brought a colloquial and realistic style to the Persian epic". This, like many of the references and much of the content of the article, is about the widely accepted view of Nizami as being a Persian poet, not about the campaign to change that view, and establish him as an Azerbaijani poet. (The Encyclopaedia Britannica article is one of the sources that I have read, and I can confirm that it simply considers Nizami Ganjavi as a Persian poet, and makes no mention at all of the "campaign" to have him considered "the national poet of Azerbaijan".)

What we have is a long, detailed, and carefully documented research paper, which might, for all I can tell, be a good contribution to a peer-reviewed journal in a relevant subject area. However, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages. It appears to be original research, which synthesises content from numerous sources to produce a new analysis, which is incompatible with Wikipeda's policy that we do not publish original research. In addition, any Misplaced Pages article on the subject would have to stick more closely to the title: the existing article is not so much about the "campaign on granting Nizami the status of the national poet of Azerbaijan" as about the whole issue of Nizami Ganjavi's status as a poet and the views which have been held by different authorities of the appropriate ethnic description of his place in literary history, with special reference to the campaign in question. It fails Misplaced Pages's standards as original research/synthesis, and it gives excessive weight to one aspect of the poet's significance. A paragraph in the article Nizami Ganjavi would be appropriate. It has, in fact, been suggested that the content be merged to that article. However, very little of the content would be suitable to be kept, and it would be easier to write such a paragraphs from scratch than to try to distil the relevant points from this long and complex thesis. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• If there is anything worth keeping (ie, sourced to our standards, then merge; that content into the article on Nizami Ganjavi. Otherwise, delete all. KillerChihuahua 10:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep First, this very same article is a Featured Article in Russian Misplaced Pages. Secondly, If someone were to read the talkpage (all 7 pages) of Nizami Ganjavi, fairly quickly it becomes obvious that Nizami Ganjavi's ethnicity is the main subject of the discussion. JamesBWatson's first argument is that the article is too long. I believe that should be applauded and not punished. How often do you come along a new article with this depth and with this many sources? He then confesses that "I have not looked at anywhere near all of the sources cited", but recognizes that the author has quoted relevant passages from the sources. For some reason, that is not enough, because, even though the sources mention about the nationalization of Nizami Ganjavi, they're about him, rather then the campaign to make him an Azerbaijani. As any new Misplaced Pages article this one also needs work, not deletion. --George Spurlin (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Not yet sorted)
• AfD debates